PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET 1

Median time from 311 rodent request to first inspection

Indicator type: Output (service performance)

Definition: Median calendar days between a rodent-related 311 request and completion of the first inspection at the associated place (parcel/blockface).

Unit: Days

Disaggregation: Ward; property type; season; neighborhood poverty/vulnerability strata (optional)

Rationale / Evidence: Timeliness is a foundational performance measure in IPM because inspections are the gateway to verification, environmental assessment, and selection of appropriate interventions. CDC’s urban rodent IPM guidance emphasizes structured surveillance and prompt field assessment to identify active signs and underlying conducive conditions (harborage, food, structural access) that sustain infestations. In municipal programs, reducing the lag between complaint signals and inspection improves operational control of emerging infestations and strengthens data quality (less recall bias, more accurate field findings). Timeliness is also a service equity issue: delays can concentrate burden in vulnerable areas if response is inconsistent.

Key evidence:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Integrated pest management: Conducting urban rodent surveys. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Evaluation of a neighborhood rat-management program-New York City, December 2007-August 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 61(37), 733-736.

Data source: 311/CRM timestamps + inspection system timestamps

Method: Link 311 → case/place → first inspection. Compute median and % within SLA.

Frequency: Weekly (ops); monthly (management); quarterly (leadership)

Data quality notes: Requires consistent time-stamps and a rule for de-duplication of multiple 311 requests for same place/time window.

Limitations: Timeliness ≠ effectiveness; some requests may be mislocated or duplicates.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET 2

Percent of 311 rodent requests confirmed by inspection

Indicator type: Outcome (signal calibration)

Definition: % of inspected 311 rodent requests that are confirmed as rodent activity (e.g., active burrows, droppings, gnaw marks, sightings) using a standardized checklist.

Formula: (Confirmed inspections ÷ Total inspected 311 rodent requests) × 100

Unit: Percent

Disaggregation: Ward; season; property type; vulnerability strata

Rationale / Evidence: Complaint systems generate a high-volume “signal,” but that signal is not equivalent to rodent abundance. Multiple studies show that complaint volume can correlate with field-measured rat activity, yet is mediated by social and environmental factors. Therefore, the percent confirmed is a critical calibration metric: it separates “noise” (unverified reports) from verified infestation indicators and improves how 311 data are interpreted for decision-making. This approach aligns with CDC and NYC practice that pairs complaint-driven reporting with standardized inspection protocols and repeated verification (indexing).

Key evidence :

Murray, M. H., Fyffe, R., Fidino, M., Byers, K. A., Pettengill, J. B., Sondgeroth, K. S., Dharmarajan, G., & Lewis, J. (2018). Public complaints reflect rat relative abundance across diverse urban neighborhoods. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 189. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00189

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Evaluation of a neighborhood rat-management program-New York City, December 2007-August 2009. MMWR, 61(37), 733-736.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Integrated pest management: Conducting urban rodent surveys. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Data source: Inspection checklist + 311 request table

Method: Binary confirm flag from inspection checklist; compute by period and geography.

Frequency: Monthly

Data quality notes: Must standardize what “confirmed” means across inspectors (same checklist definitions). CDC emphasizes structured survey and reporting.

Limitations: Inspector variability; confirmation rates can vary by season and setting.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET 3

Rodent Sign Index (RSI) level and trend from inspections/surveys

Indicator type: Outcome (verified activity / surveillance)

Definition: A standardized Rodent Sign Index score at each inspection/survey (e.g., weighted checklist of active burrows, droppings, gnaw marks, rub marks, sightings), summarized as:

Mean/median RSI by geography/time, and

% places with “Active Rat Signs (ARS)” (RSI above threshold).

Unit: Index score; percent with ARS

Disaggregation: Ward; blockface; property type; program zone (hotspot/non-hotspot); poverty/vulnerability strata

Rationale / Evidence: IPM evaluation requires standardized field measures of rodent activity and conducive conditions. CDC’s survey methodology explicitly supports structured field observation for mapping, prioritization, and follow-up evaluation. The NYC rat indexing program operationalized this using Active Rat Signs (ARS) to measure program outcomes across tens of thousands of properties and multiple rounds of repeat inspections. A standardized RSI/ARS measure creates comparability across time, teams, and geographies-making it the backbone indicator for verified burden monitoring.

Key evidence:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Integrated pest management: Conducting urban rodent surveys. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Evaluation of a neighborhood rat-management program-New York City, December 2007-August 2009. MMWR, 61(37), 733-736.

Data source: Inspection and routine survey forms

Method: Create RSI scoring rubric; store RSI at every visit; aggregate by place and period.

Frequency: Weekly (ops view), monthly/quarterly (trend)

Data quality notes: Requires the same scoring rubric at baseline and follow-up; electronic capture improves consistency (as in NYC).

Limitations: RSI is an index, not a population count; still highly actionable for IPM.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET

Percent of sites improved at follow-up (RSI reduction)

Indicator type: Outcome (intervention effectiveness)

Definition: % of sites with a lower RSI (or ARS severity category) at follow-up compared with baseline inspection.

Formula: (Sites with RSI↓ at follow-up ÷ Sites with follow-up) × 100

Unit: Percent

Disaggregation: Intervention type; ward; property type; contractor vs city crew; vulnerability strata

Rationale / Evidence: Follow-up resurvey is central to IPM because it verifies whether interventions reduced rodent activity and whether environmental drivers were corrected. CDC’s IPM model is cyclical: survey → intervention selection → implementation → evaluation via repeat assessment. NYC’s indexing evaluation demonstrates how repeated rounds of standardized inspections can quantify reductions in ARS and severe infestation. A “percent improved” outcome indicator is practical for managers, comparable across neighborhoods, and directly tied to verified public health risk reduction.

Key evidence:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Evaluation of a neighborhood rat-management program-New York City, December 2007-August 2009. MMWR, 61(37), 733-736.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Integrated pest management: Conducting urban rodent surveys. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Data source: Baseline + follow-up inspection checklist (RSI stored both times)

Method: Define follow-up window (e.g., 14-30 days post-intervention); compute change.

Frequency: Monthly/quarterly

Data quality notes: Follow-up completion is critical; include a companion indicator: “% cases with follow-up completed.”

Limitations: Seasonality can influence RSI; interpret alongside routine survey trends.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET 5 

60-day recurrence rate (repeat signal + repeat verification)

Indicator type: Outcome (sustainability)

Definition: % of sites that show recurrence within 60 days after verified closure, defined as either:

a repeat 311 rodent request and/or

a new inspection confirming ARS/RSI above threshold.

Formula: (Closed cases with recurrence ≤60d ÷ Total verified-closed cases) × 100

Unit: Percent

Disaggregation: Intervention type; ward; property type; vulnerability strata

Rationale / Evidence: Urban rat populations are spatially persistent and can rebound quickly if food/harborage drivers are not corrected or if neighboring properties remain infested. Recurrence is therefore a stronger “sustainability” indicator than simple case closure, because it reflects whether the system achieved durable risk reduction. Rat movement research shows strong site fidelity and localized home ranges, reinforcing the need to measure persistence and rebound at place level. Recurrence is also consistent with the critique that “reactive” rodent programs fail when they do not address structural causes.

Key evidence:

Byers, K. A., Lee, M. J., Patrick, D. M., & Himsworth, C. G. (2019). Rats about town: A systematic review of rat movement in urban ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00013

Lee, M. J., Byers, K. A., Donovan, C. M., Bidulka, J. J., Stephen, C., Patrick, D. M., & Himsworth, C. G. (2022). Reconsidering the “war on rats”: What we know from the history of rat management in cities. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 813600. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.813600

Data source: Case table + 311 + inspections

Method: Place-based matching (parcel/blockface) and time-window logic.

Frequency: Quarterly

Data quality notes: Requires strong place IDs and clear closure criteria.

Limitations: Repeat complaints can reflect multiple reporters; confirm with inspection when possible.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET 6 

Root-cause remediation completion rate (sanitation/exclusion/referrals)

Indicator type: Output → Outcome bridge (structural conditions addressed)

Definition: % of cases where documented “conditions conducive to infestation” were addressed, evidenced by:

referral issued and completed (DPW/housing/code), and/or

inspection verifying sanitation/exclusion correction (e.g., waste secured, structural gaps addressed).

Unit: Percent

Disaggregation: Referral agency; violation type; ward; vulnerability strata

Rationale / Evidence: IPM is explicitly prevention-based: it prioritizes correcting conducive conditions (food waste access, structural entry points, harborage) rather than relying on pesticides alone. EPA’s IPM framework similarly emphasizes long-lasting control through prevention and remediation, and CDC’s rodent survey methodology centers on identifying environmental conditions driving infestation. A remediation completion indicator distinguishes programs that simply “respond” from programs that actually remove drivers of infestation and reduce future burden.

Key evidence:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Integrated pest management: Conducting urban rodent surveys. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). Integrated pest management in health care facilities: A toolkit for facilities.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Integrated pest management (IPM) principles.

Data source: Referral tracker + inspection checklist fields (sanitation/exclusion)

Frequency: Quarterly

Limitations: Partner-dependent; may need data-sharing agreements.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET 7 

Hotspot persistence index (confirmed activity)

Indicator type: Outcome (strategic risk concentration)

Definition: Share of blockfaces (or grid cells) that remain in the top X% of confirmed RSI/ARS burden for ≥3 consecutive months.

Unit: Percent (persistent hotspots / all hotspots)

Disaggregation: Ward; vulnerability strata

Rationale / Evidence: Persistent hotspots reflect entrenched environmental drivers and networked infestation dynamics across adjacent parcels, commercial corridors, and waste systems. IPM practice and rat ecology both support place-based targeting; movement studies show rats often remain localized, meaning that persistent hotspot designation can guide targeted remediation and enforcement at the block scale. NYC’s indexing approach operationalized a proactive place-based strategy rather than purely complaint-driven response; a hotspot persistence index translates that strategy into an executive-ready metric.

Key evidence:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Evaluation of a neighborhood rat-management program-New York City, December 2007-August 2009. MMWR, 61(37), 733-736.

Byers, K. A., Lee, M. J., Patrick, D. M., & Himsworth, C. G. (2019). Rats about town: A systematic review of rat movement in urban ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00013

Data source: RSI/inspection/survey data (preferred) + 311 as secondary

Method: Define hotspot threshold; compute persistence over rolling windows.

Frequency: Monthly (map), quarterly (reporting)

Limitations: Requires stable geography definitions and consistent inspection coverage.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET 8 

Equity: “under-reporting gap” and proactive coverage in high-risk, low-report zones

Indicator type: Equity / strategic targeting

Definition (two-part):

8A. Under-reporting gap index: Areas with lower-than-expected 311 rodent reporting given modeled risk (housing, sanitation, density, season).

8B. Proactive inspection coverage rate: Proactive inspections per 1,000 parcels in those flagged under-reporting areas.

Unit: Index + rate

Disaggregation: Ward; race/ethnicity proxy (where appropriate/allowed); poverty/vulnerability strata

Rationale / Evidence: A central risk in using 311 as surveillance is inequity in reporting propensity: lower-income and marginalized neighborhoods may have greater need but file fewer “nuisance” complaints due to barriers in access, trust, time, and engagement. This is well documented in smart city and 311 bias research and can produce systematically unfair resource allocation if complaint volume is treated as “need.” The under-reporting gap index is an applied correction tool: it flags places where modeled risk or objective need is high but 311 reporting is low. Proactive inspections in these areas align with IPM best practice (routine surveys) while operationalizing equity through measurable coverage targets.

Key evidence:

Kontokosta, C. E., & Hong, B. (2021). Bias in smart city governance: How socio-spatial disparities in 311 complaint behavior impact the fairness of data-driven decisions. Sustainable Cities and Society, 64, 102503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102503

Cook, S. J., Zuhlke, S., & Saywitz, R. (2024). Potholes, 311 reports, and a theory of heterogeneous resident demand for city services. Policy Studies Journal, 52(3), 647-669. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12540

McLafferty, S., Schneider, D., & Abelt, K. (2020). Placing volunteered geographic health information: Socio-spatial bias in 311 bed bug report data for New York City. Health & Place, 62, 102282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102282

Wang, L., Qian, C., Kats, P., Kontokosta, C., & Sobolevsky, S. (2017). Structure of 311 service requests as a signature of urban location. PLOS ONE, 12(10), e0186314. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186314

Data source: 311 + inspections/surveys + parcel + census/ACS + sanitation proxies + season/weather

Method: Predict expected complaints; identify negative residual areas; set proactive coverage targets and track attainment.

Frequency: Quarterly

Limitations: Risk model assumptions must be transparent; avoid stigmatizing labels-frame as “low-service-demand / high-risk areas.”

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET 9 

Equity: SLA parity and outcome parity

Indicator type: Equity / accountability

Definition:

9A. SLA parity: Difference in % meeting inspection SLA between high-vulnerability areas and citywide average.

9B. Outcome parity: Difference in RSI improvement rate (PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET 4) between high-vulnerability areas and citywide average.

Unit: Percentage-point gap

Disaggregation: Ward; vulnerability strata

Rationale / Evidence: Equity in public health operations requires measurement of both procedural equity (fairness in response times, inspections, follow-up) and substantive equity (fairness in outcomes such as RSI improvement and recurrence reduction). 311 research shows that uneven participation can drive inequitable service delivery if operations are overly complaint-driven. Equity indicators ensure that DC Health can demonstrate that high-vulnerability neighborhoods receive timely response and achieve comparable verified risk reduction-even when complaint rates differ.

Key evidence:

Kontokosta, C. E., & Hong, B. (2021). Bias in smart city governance: How socio-spatial disparities in 311 complaint behavior impact the fairness of data-driven decisions. Sustainable Cities and Society, 64, 102503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102503

Cook, S. J., Zuhlke, S., & Saywitz, R. (2024). Potholes, 311 reports, and a theory of heterogeneous resident demand for city services. Policy Studies Journal, 52(3), 647-669. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12540

McLafferty, S., Schneider, D., & Abelt, K. (2020). Placing volunteered geographic health information: Socio-spatial bias in 311 bed bug report data for New York City. Health & Place, 62, 102282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102282

Data source: 311 + inspection/follow-up + vulnerability strata

Frequency: Quarterly

Limitations: Requires agreed vulnerability stratification and careful interpretation.